DEOLAL BULAKHI SAITWAL Vs. KADU TOLARAM MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Deolal Bulakhi Saitwai, the original landlord, and it is made against the order of the Revenue Tribunal, by which order the Revenue Tribunal confirmed the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and the Prant Officer.

(2.) THE applicant applied under Section 34 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act to the Mamlatdar of Raver to recover possession of the suit lands Section Nos. 236/1-2 and 822/2 of Raver on the ground that he bona fide required these lands for personal cultivation. The Mamlatdar, upon the evidence before him, came to the conclusion that the landlord's requirement was bona fide and that the income of the suit lands was the main source of the income of the landlord for his maintenance. He, however, took the view that since the area of the lands, of which the possession was sought by the landlord, exceeded 16 acres of Jirayar land which is the area of an agricultural holding, the landlord was entitled to recover possession of only half the portion of the suit lands for his personal cultivation, leaving the remaining half in the possession of the tenants for cultivation by them. This order of the Mamlatdar was confirmed in appeal by the Prant Officer. Upon the landlord going in revision before the Revenue Tribunal, the Tribunal also confirmed the orders passed by the Courts below. It is in these circumstances that the landlord has some to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contending that he is entitled to recover possession of the entire suit lands, whose area is 16 acres 23 gunthas, from the tenants.

(3.) THE point which arises in this application is a short one, and the point is us to the construction of the expression 'land held by the landlord' which occurs in Clause (3) of Sub-section (2a) of Section 34 of the Tenancy Act. It would appear from the order passed by the Mamlatdar, which order was confirmed in appeal by the Prant Officer and in revision by the Revenue Tribunal, that the construction which all the courts put upon the words 'land held by the landlord' was 'land owned by the landlord. ' Mr. Chandrachud for the petitioner-landlord challenges that construction and contends that the expression 'land held by the landlord' in Clause (3) of Sub-section (2a) of Section 34 means 'land possessed by the landlord for personal cultivation' and does not mean 'land owned by the landlord. ' On the other hand, Mr. Jahagirdar for the tenants contends that the term 'land' which is to be found in Clause (1), (2) and (3) of Sub-section (2a) means 'land of which the possession is sought or claimed by the landlord'; and it is clear that if we accept Mr. Jahagirdar's contention, the present application of the landlord must fail since in this case the area of the land of which the possession is sought by the landlord exceeds the area of an agricultural holding, that is, it exceeds 16 acres of jirayat land.